Open Carry While Voting

[Tucker6900]

But I can emphatically state that by doing something which requires a license one is generally required to show the license to a LEO, save one activity: driving an automobile. This exception is there only because of the aforementioned case.

I am all for the argument that they shouldn't be able to check your license, BUT to assert they can't stop you to check as if it has been decided by some court only puts people who follow the advice into a potentially costly situation. I think it would be better to present the issue in the most cautious way in a public forum.

So what about the numerous checkpoints placed by LEO? It is my understanding that without cause, an officer cannot stop you. Therefore, if an officer stops someone at a checkpoint, they are not required to show a license just because they were stopped.

I think the same goes for the CPL in PFZ's. If the officer does not have a legal reason to approach someone, they have no requirment to produce a permit.

 

[DrTodd]

I'm not saying your logic is faulty, just that what we believe to be "logical" is not, as far as I know, supported by case-law. Because this was asked as a question concerning what the current law is, I argue that current law does not, to the best of my knowledge, support the notion that showing a CPL is not required. However, in a purely academic discussion I would have no problem supporting the view expressed that RAS is lacking. But, knowing that the standard for RAS is extremely low, coupled with the general courtesy given by judges to LEOs, I would bet that refusing to show ID in the aforementioned situation is going to cause problems for the CPL holder. If you have a case where a person has successfully argued the position that RAS is lacking in a case other than that which concerns driving an automobile, please send me a copy of that decision. Absent that, I think it is reckless to state that RAS is absent in the situation as if it is settled case-law.

 

[griffin]

So what about the numerous checkpoints placed by LEO? It is my understanding that without cause, an officer cannot stop you. Therefore, if an officer stops someone at a checkpoint, they are not required to show a license just because they were stopped.

There are videos of people refusing to show ID at random checkpoints.

 

[DrTodd]

So what about the numerous checkpoints placed by LEO? It is my understanding that without cause, an officer cannot stop you. Therefore, if an officer stops someone at a checkpoint, they are not required to show a license just because they were stopped.

I think the same goes for the CPL in PFZ's. If the officer does not have a legal reason to approach someone, they have no requirment to produce a permit.

Btw, it does depend on what you mean by "checkpoints"... at least in Michigan.

 

[cmdr_iceman71]

No vest on the outside?

I wear my vest all the time, however I only wear it on the outside when I'm exercising outside so as to help get rid of excess body heat. So yes in that pic was wearing my vest under my shirt. A gold star for you Fozzy71. lol

 

[FreeInAZ]

I wear my vest all the time, however I only wear on the outside when I'm exercising outside so as to help get rid of excess body heat. So yes in that pic was wearing my vest under my shirt. A gold star for you Fozzy71. lol

I had it right too, but phased it poorly. I should of said "wears it outside when biking", dooh So close but no gold star for me. Never did get to take that bike ride with you Commander. I do it all the time now, with no need of a permission slip. Oh freedom is soooo nice. :monkey:monkey:monkey Viva G9OS!

 

[cmdr_iceman71]

By itself, being in possession of a firearm in a PFZ is a crime so when a LEO sees a person OCing in a PFZ he already has all the reasonable articulated suspicion (RAS) he needs that a crime is occurring. At that point the burden is upon the OCer to prove that they fall under one of the exemptions spelled out in the statutes proving that they are in fact NOT committing a crime.

 

[FreeInAZ]

By itself, being in possession of a firearm in a PFZ is a crime so when a LEO sees a person OCing in a PFZ he already has all the reasonable articulated suspicion (RAS) he needs that a crime is occurring. At that point the burden is upon the OCer to prove that they fall under one of the exemptions spelled out in the statutes proving that they are in fact NOT committing a crime.

Well one could say driving a vehicle without a license is a crime too. Yet police do not pull over people just to see if they do in fact have a license, now do they

 

[DrTodd]

Well one could say driving a vehicle without a license is a crime too. Yet police do not pull over people just to see if they do in fact have a license, now do they

 

[FreeInAZ]

Oh yeah wise guy take that...

[video=youtube;pr9bthXTlj0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pr9bthXTlj0[/video]

 

[smellslikemichigan]

By itself, being in possession of a firearm in a PFZ is a crime so when a LEO sees a person OCing in a PFZ he already has all the reasonable articulated suspicion (RAS) he needs that a crime is occurring. At that point the burden is upon the OCer to prove that they fall under one of the exemptions spelled out in the statutes proving that they are in fact NOT committing a crime.

by itself, being in possession of a handgun is a crime if you're a felon. or if it's unregistered in michigan. so your PFZ scenario holds no water. do police have the right to stop everyone to check that your gun is registered or run a background check to find out if you're a felon? no matter where you are, it COULD be illegal depending on circumstances. it's up to an officer to PROVE that he had RAS that you were in violation of one of those conditions.

 

[HKcarrier]

Greetings ~

I open-carried at the Butterfield Township Hall (near Merritt) while voting this afternoon. The volunteers tending to the ballots were friendly and helpful. No problems at all.

Was glad to see the largest turn-out for voting in the last six years.

Take care, y'all.

Respectfully,
Billy

Largest turn out yet the final numbers show that Romney got less votes than McCain or Bush during the last go around... WTH?!?!

 

[Bronson]

It seems that no matter how hard you swing the hammer DrTodd you just can't seem to pound it into their skulls.

Bronson

 

[smellslikemichigan]

so i guess there will be no complaining when cops start stopping everyone for OC

 

[Raggs]

so i guess there will be no complaining when cops start stopping everyone for OC

probably not in a PFZ.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

probably not in a PFZ.

i'm talking about everywhere. all handguns are required to be registered, so an officer needs to check that. and felons can't possess them, so that needs to be checked as well. there's no difference. it's all about how much an officer pre-assumes.

 

[FreeInAZ]

so i guess there will be no complaining when cops start stopping everyone for OC

probably not in a PFZ.

Well following that logic, we should just throw in the towel and start carrying our "papers" everywhere and show them on demand to anyone who challenges our standing as a NON FELON. I understand the legal aspect that DrTodd has based his posting on. Is he wrong? No. Is it right to have a Officer sworn to uphold the law, break it, illegally detain, search and even arrest a legal OCer and then have the nerve to ask "How do I know are you are not a Felon?" I have on one occasion answered in this manner: "well officer ______, based on your actions and clear violations of the law that have occurred, I'd say I should be asking you that question."

If we simply roll over to the whims of "curious" police we will see our hard earned rights being steadily eroded.:uhoh:

 

[TheQ]

@OP

I didn't OC while voting Tuesday because I didn't vote on Tuesday.

 

[smellslikemichigan]

Well following that logic, we should just throw in the towel and start carrying our "papers" everywhere and show them on demand to anyone who challenges our standing as a NON FELON. I understand the legal aspect that DrTodd has based his posting on. Is he wrong? No. Is it right to have a Officer sworn to uphold the law, break it, illegally detain, search and even arrest a legal OCer and then have the nerve to ask "How do I know are you are not a Felon?" I have on one occasion answered in this manner: "well officer ______, based on your actions and clear violations of the law that have occurred, I'd say I should be asking you that question."

If we simply roll over to the whims of "curious" police we will see our hard earned rights being steadily eroded.:uhoh:

:banana:

 

[cmdr_iceman71]

by itself, being in possession of a handgun is a crime if you're a felon. or if it's unregistered in michigan. so your PFZ scenario holds no water. do police have the right to stop everyone to check that your gun is registered or run a background check to find out if you're a felon? no matter where you are, it COULD be illegal depending on circumstances. it's up to an officer to PROVE that he had RAS that you were in violation of one of those conditions.

The fundamental difference between OCing in a PFZ and a felon OCing or a person in possession of an unregistered pistol is that in the latter two scenarios the LEO doesnt have enough evidence or facts to know that a crime is being committed. In the OCing in a PFZ the LEO already has enough evidence that a crime is occurring by the mere sight of a person in possession of a pistol. Now if that same person weren't in a PFZ and they were OCing then the burden shifts to the LEO to prove a crime is occuring, has occurred or is imminent.